Suggested Guests

[Mogwa]

The only person on the list who deals in anything remotely resembling the paranormal is Heiser. I don't get it.

[Aaron LeClair]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

You guys ever heard of William Lyne?
I heard him on another show that deals with alternative energy and was really impressed by the research that he had done. He's written several books on Tesla and delves into the mind-blowing, futuristic inventions that he was working on. He purports that UFOs were man-made vehicles using exotic propulsion systems that were around since the turn of the 20th century. How US government hushed it all up and started disinformation campaign about Alien Visitors to cover up what was really going on... Just intresting stuff, another view point as to what maybe going on.

Pity that nifty technology is only used to spoke us into thinking grey guys are running around giving people anal probes etc.

What's his take on why the government bends over backwards to make the public think aliens aren't visiting? Reverse psychology?

[Ankhes]

Originally Posted by pixelsmith

David is probably reacting as i did for many years. I was a moon landing believer for many years because i saw them do it live on tv. Since then i believe there needs to be some investigating. there seems to be more evidence in support of them NOT landing.

i need someone explain the lack of dust on the lander feet, dust was kicked up by walking astronauts and rover wheels, why didnt the jet blast stir up even a single dust particle or leave a crater? an astronaut can leave an impression in the soft sand by gently stepping in it but a massive jet engine landing leaves nothing?!? pure BS. doesnt take a genius to see a problem here.

i need someone to explain the fill in light on photos and other anomalies regarding shadow direction. yes David will say the moon surface reflects. yes light colored surfaces reflect but not that much. no way. not a chance.

there are many other things that i need explained to me as well but they are too numerous to type them all.

Try this for a start - pretty decent stuff here.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[Aaron LeClair]

Originally Posted by pixelsmith

David is probably reacting as i did for many years. I was a moon landing believer for many years because i saw them do it live on tv. Since then i believe there needs to be some investigating. there seems to be more evidence in support of them NOT landing.

i need someone explain the lack of dust on the lander feet, dust was kicked up by walking astronauts and rover wheels, why didnt the jet blast stir up even a single dust particle or leave a crater? an astronaut can leave an impression in the soft sand by gently stepping in it but a massive jet engine landing leaves nothing?!? pure BS. doesnt take a genius to see a problem here.

i need someone to explain the fill in light on photos and other anomalies regarding shadow direction. yes David will say the moon surface reflects. yes light colored surfaces reflect but not that much. no way. not a chance.

there are many other things that i need explained to me as well but they are too numerous to type them all.

Pixel. It's been dealt with in the Moon Landing thread. See the links I provided there for details.

[mkotschi]

Just to add to the suggestions, Dean Radin and or Edgar Mitchell would be extremely interesting guests to have on.

[pixelsmith]

i forgot about the MAGIC MOON DUST and its magic reflective properties. IMO pure BS. but i give you points for being a good sheeple leclair.

[BrandonD]

Originally Posted by A.LeClair

Pixel. It's been dealt with in the Moon Landing thread. See the links I provided there for details.

I think that the approach being made by the bad astronomy website regarding the moon controversy is totally incorrect. They are trying to individually tackle the pieces of evidence being put forth supporting the argument that we did NOT land on the moon. Despite what people may think, the burden of proof is in fact on those who claim that the moon landing DID occur. If a person holds back their patriotic fervor for 2 seconds they will see that this makes logical sense.

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that we landed on the moon? This is what I would like to know, and it is something that none of the websites address because they consider it "self-evident", which it is not. The fact that lots of people believe something does not make it true. The fact that something was seen on television does not make it true.

This subject is actually low on my list of subjects of interest, but it fires me up to see people in this forum behaving towards those who take the "moon hoax" subject seriously the exact same way that ordinary joes behave towards people who take the ufo subject seriously.

[Rick Deckard]

Originally Posted by BrandonD

I think that the approach being made by the bad astronomy website regarding the moon controversy is totally incorrect. They are trying to individually tackle the pieces of evidence being put forth supporting the argument that we did NOT land on the moon. Despite what people may think, the burden of proof is in fact on those who claim that the moon landing DID occur. If a person holds back their patriotic fervor for 2 seconds they will see that this makes logical sense.

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that we landed on the moon? This is what I would like to know, and it is something that none of the websites address because they consider it "self-evident", which it is not. The fact that lots of people believe something does not make it true. The fact that something was seen on television does not make it true.

This subject is actually low on my list of subjects of interest, but it fires me up to see people in this forum behaving towards those who take the "moon hoax" subject seriously the exact same way that ordinary joes behave towards people who take the ufo subject seriously.

Good post. Well said.

[cottonzway]

Only ask Jim Fetzer on if you want to hear about "Space Beams" and "No Planes" bull****! He either lost his mind or is being paid to sound like a clown.

[Casual Paracast Listener]

Well, Just to clear something for the "It did happen exactly the way they said it did happen" people.

Well the "No it did not happen this way" people are not there to say "It did not happen at all", They are just saying "Well it did not happen that way"

Alright so to be serious about it now...

The issue here is not to say that mankind did not get to the moon! As yes The USSR did go/land on the moon with their unmanned LUNA missions, USA did as well afterwards with thier unmanned Ranger/Surveyor & Pioneer i think but not so sure about Pioneer...

Anyway the problem is with the manned Apollo program "The 1969 Apollo 11" specifically and not so specifically but as for the cultural impact of the "The 1969 Apollo 11" I would not take it against any one who may find this subject to be ridiculous, As personally i thought "It did happen exactly the way they said it did happen" till i did listen to Bart Sibrel, Did some research afterwards and oh oh... Something is wrong here flag started waving.

So just listen to Bart Sibrel and/or other people on that side, checkout the documentation from both sides and make up your own mind given you like to check it out in the first place.

But regardless it is going to be a good show at least compared to the most of them so far episodes which i did not generally like except for the ones that i have noted.

Oh and @ cottonzway: Well i do not know about Space Beams and There were no planes, I know of course about No Pentagon plane but where did you hear/read that?

Any way my choice for Jim Fetzer was mainly for JFK as this what i listen to him talking about and discussing as for 9.11 he does discuss that as well but i do not remember anything about "Space Beams" & no WTC jets, I will re-listen to his 9.11 interview again sometime to check it out

Personally i can not wait for a Bart Sibrel Paracast episode then a Jim Fetzer on JFK episode.